Matrix Games Forums

Mi-24 Hind.

In NATO circles, the export versions, Mi-25 and Mi-35, are denoted with a letter suffix as "Hind D" and "Hind E" respectively.

Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)

The Mi-25 saw considerable use by the Iraqi Army during the long war against Iran. Its heavy armament was a key factor in causing severe damage to Iranian ground forces during the war. However, the Mi-25s lacked an effective anti-tank capability, as they were only armed with obsolete 9M17 Skorpion missiles. This led the Iraqis to develop new gunship tactics, with help from East German advisors. The Mi-25s would form "hunter-killer" teams with French-built Aérospatiale Gazelles, with the Mi-25s leading the attack and using their massive firepower to suppress Iranian air defenses, and the Gazelles using their HOT missiles to engage armored fighting vehicles. These tactics proved effective in halting Iranian offensives, such as Operation Ramadan in July 1982.

This war also saw the only confirmed air-to-air helicopter battles in history with the Iraqi Mi-25s flying against Iranian AH-1J SeaCobras (supplied by the United States before the Iranian Revolution) on several separate occasions. Not long after Iraq's initial invasion of Iran, in November 1980 two Iranian SeaCobras crept up on two Mi-25s and hit them with TOW wire-guided antitank missiles. One Mi-25 went down immediately, the other was badly damaged and crashed before reaching base. The Iranians pulled off a repeat performance on 24 April 1981, destroying two Mi-25s without incurring losses to themselves.

The Iraqis hit back, claiming the destruction of a SeaCobra on 14 September 1983 (with YaKB machine gun), then three SeaCobras on 5 February 1984 and three more on 25 February 1984 (two with Falanga missiles, one with S-5 rockets). After a lull in helicopter losses, each side lost a gunship on 13 February 1986. Later, a Mi-25 claimed a SeaCobra shot down with YaKB gun on 16 February, and a SeaCobra claimed a Mi-25 shot down with rockets on 18 February. The last engagement between the two types was on 22 May 1986, when Mi-25s shot down a SeaCobra. The final claim tally was 10 SeaCobras destroyed and 6 Mi-25s destroyed. The relatively small numbers and the inevitable disputes over actual kill numbers makes it unclear if one gunship had a real technical superiority over the other. Iraqi Mi-25s also claimed a total of 43 kills against other Iranian helicopters, such as Agusta-Bell UH-1 Hueys.

In general, the Iraqi pilots liked the Mi-25, in particular for its high speed, long range, high versatility and large weapon load, but disliked the relatively ineffectual weapons and lack of agility. The Mi-25 was also used by Iraq in chemical warfare against Iranians and Kurdish civilians in Halabja.

Good Hunting.

MR

Wow...astonishing...

Got the message Sir! Getting those Hinds ready to fly Comrade!

ps: Can you suggest me where do I find more war events descriptions like this? Specifically engagements between Russian and western equipments. Dont know why Russian hardware have always had a special, very deep and dormant, interest on my part. Even though I dont know much about them. Regarding Russian helicopters and jets might be something in its silhouette that amaze me...

Half of my family is from US…have a couple of cousins entering the US army…will try to keep my Russian interest dormant for now…hahaha…

I just dont get it why the soviets have lower morale. Soviet/russian morale was high in every 20 century war. If you heard about Stalingrad or Kursk. I cant find an explanation for this.

Why the Soviets have a lower morale in what?

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Why the Soviets have a lower morale in what?

Good Hunting.

MR

I ve been scrolling through the user documents on all game's factions and the soviet faction has the lowest morale for some reason. While this is all highly debatable, i cant agree with that. I agree Wger morale must be high because it all takes place in Germany but there are also east german troops alongside the soviets and by the way the soviets were in Germany in 1945 already and didnt show any lack of morale back then. I think both british and american morale should be lower then soviet and Wgerman. They knew they were outgunned and as some people mentioned were going to "shoot hinds with tank main gun" which i dont know how to describe other then desperation.

EDIT Ok, got that figured in steam thanks.

The training and morale values in the data reflect an average of the countries entire forces. Not just the A-team. This is a subjective value for sure, but you have to look at all types of troops commandoes down to conscripts. It is up to the scenario designer to go in and adjust those values to better reflect the forces in a scenario. If you are clashing average units (B/C grade forces) you are ready roll.

As stated on Steam, Mad Russian modified all those soft values for each scenario in the game based on the situation for the scenario. [8D]

Maxdamage, read "The Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army" by Victor Suvorov, the soviet army was in the majority conscript based army which historically have been plagued by poor morale. The Soviets in 1945 had just defeated the germans after nearly 4 years of war so you'd expect their morale at the time to be high, after post war reductions and the start of 2-3 year conscript period, fast forward 20-30 years and you'll find morale will be lower than profession armies (look at the Falklands war in 1982).

The west germans operated a mix of limited conscription and volunteer service but given they are fighting for their homeland so you'd expect them to have good morale.

As to the British, we knew it would be a tough fight but the general consensus was we would give the soviets a tough time so morale was never going to be a problem unlike MOD procurement procedures. I cant comment on the US forces as we were too far north to bump into them often.

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Maxdamage, read "The Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army" by Victor Suvorov, the soviet army was in the majority conscript based army which historically have been plagued by poor morale. The Soviets in 1945 had just defeated the germans after nearly 4 years of war so you'd expect their morale at the time to be high, after post war reductions and the start of 2-3 year conscript period, fast forward 20-30 years and you'll find morale will be lower than profession armies (look at the Falklands war in 1982).

The west germans operated a mix of limited conscription and volunteer service but given they are fighting for their homeland so you'd expect them to have good morale.

As to the British, we knew it would be a tough fight but the general consensus was we would give the soviets a tough time so morale was never going to be a problem unlike MOD procurement procedures. I cant comment on the US forces as we were too far north to bump into them often.

Suvorov defected to the UK from the soviet Union. Basically its a traitor. if you know something about traitors, its that they arent trustworthy. Especially in regards to thoise whom they betray. In the UK he got those bonus points for writing anti soviet. If you wanted to bring up a decent source just dont do this lol. I have read lots of memoirs and rememberings from the soviet veterans from ww2 in native language and i have a pretty good grip on the subject. People actually interview them all the time lately while they are still alive and there are sites where you can read it all openly. Most of the veterans say that they felt they will win the war in any case even in the 1941 they always had this faith. Thats a HIGH morale.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Soviet Army is made up various different republics and ethnic groups. Some of them are not going to be all that keen to fight in the first place. There is also a language problem in that many of the conscripts are not necessarily Russian or have a thorough grasp of Russian while most of the officers will likely be of Russian ethnicity. This leads to communication problems which are only exacerbated in something as extreme as a combat environment. When you can only understand the most basic of commands from an officer you can only understand a little, this will only add even further confusion and negatively affect morale.

This may be an exxageration about the language barrier in soviet army. It happened in ww2 i ve heard a bout it a couple of times but those were hastily conscripted units, kinda last resort situation and it would be impossible in the units which take part in the game.

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Maxdamage, read "The Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army" by Victor Suvorov, the soviet army was in the majority conscript based army which historically have been plagued by poor morale. The Soviets in 1945 had just defeated the germans after nearly 4 years of war so you'd expect their morale at the time to be high, after post war reductions and the start of 2-3 year conscript period, fast forward 20-30 years and you'll find morale will be lower than profession armies (look at the Falklands war in 1982).

The west germans operated a mix of limited conscription and volunteer service but given they are fighting for their homeland so you'd expect them to have good morale.

As to the British, we knew it would be a tough fight but the general consensus was we would give the soviets a tough time so morale was never going to be a problem unlike MOD procurement procedures. I cant comment on the US forces as we were too far north to bump into them often.

Suvorov defected to the UK from the soviet Union. Basically its a traitor. if you know something about traitors, its that they arent trustworthy. Especially in regards to thoise whom they betray. In the UK he got those bonus points for writing anti soviet. If you wanted to bring up a decent source just dont do this lol. I have read lots of memoirs and rememberings from the soviet veterans from ww2 in native language and i have a pretty good grip on the subject. People actually interview them all the time lately while they are still alive and there are sites where you can read it all openly. Most of the veterans say that they felt they will win the war in any case even in the 1941 they always had this faith. Thats a HIGH morale.

And where do you live?

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

This may be an exxageration about the language barrier in soviet army. It happened in ww2 i ve heard a bout it a couple of times but those were hastily conscripted units, kinda last resort situation and it would be impossible in the units which take part in the game.

That might not be factor in the initial divisions in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, but casualties in a modern war between two major powers/groups like NATO and WarPac would quickly escalate. Assuming NATO puts up a half way competent defense, I doubt it would take all that long before the Soviets would have to throw in secondary and tertiary units in which that language problem may become a factor. Some ethnic groups are well Russified and this wouldn't be a problem, but some are not.

That being said, I really haven't paid much attention to Soviet morale values in game. I don't find it much of a factor in terms of preventing me from playing the Soviets effectively. I tend to stay away from any long range duels with NATO forces and if I have to commit a direct attack over unfavorable ground, I try to attack on multiple vectors to prevent effective concentration of fire and increase chances one of the groups can close in and even up the odds. The bigger challenge is when there is no real room for maneuver. In those situations, the NATO player (if he has properly positioned his forces) can inflict some pretty serious damage and delay on any attacking force.

Im from Russia.

ORIGINAL: Kommissar

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

This may be an exxageration about the language barrier in soviet army. It happened in ww2 i ve heard a bout it a couple of times but those were hastily conscripted units, kinda last resort situation and it would be impossible in the units which take part in the game.

That might not be factor in the initial divisions in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, but casualties in a modern war between two major powers/groups like NATO and WarPac would quickly escalate. Assuming NATO puts up a half way competent defense, I doubt it would take all that long before the Soviets would have to throw in secondary and tertiary units in which that language problem may become a factor. Some ethnic groups are well Russified and this wouldn't be a problem, but some are not.

That being said, I really haven't paid much attention to Soviet morale values in game. I don't find it much of a factor in terms of preventing me from playing the Soviets effectively. I tend to stay away from any long range duels with NATO forces and if I have to commit a direct attack over unfavorable ground, I try to attack on multiple vectors to prevent effective concentration of fire and increase chances one of the groups can close in and even up the odds. The bigger challenge is when there is no real room for maneuver. In those situations, the NATO player (if he has properly positioned his forces) can inflict some pretty serious damage and delay on any attacking force.

That during ww2 when the USSR was still young. Later 95+ % people were educated to speak russian in elementary schools.

MaxDamage, I think I understand your point.

For me, I have a tendency to question generalized concepts. History descriptions and News are biased and one sided, no matter the source. At least thats the way I confront everything I read. One thing that I try to do is to read different sources, especially from the parties involved in a particular subject.

In this discussion, for example, I would read the "Liberators: My Life in the Soviet Army" by Victor Suvorov as suggested by Tazak as well as any source you might suggest me (I have read lots of memoirs and rememberings from the soviet veterans from ww2 in native language and i have a pretty good grip on the subject). The only problem here is that I will have a hard time reading russian..., but that way I would come up with a better idea of the situation, reading and learning from opposite points of view and experiences.

One thing that is certain is that life is not black and white as normally everybody put it. It is a huge range of an infinite tones of gray...

Regarding the game, we can edit it to our liking. I will do that for the Soviet side as soon as I get a better proficiency in the game and the 4th tutorial is released. Even thou, in respect of the OTS team hard work, I do feel that the team came up with a very reasonable representation of a Cold War gone Hot situation in 89. I know that they have mentioned that they have collected a huge amount of documents and informations from a variety of different sources. Thats not a easy task to do!

Best Regards to you all,

I think the morale discussion is worthy of its own discussion thread

Maxdamage,you keep referencing WWII but the 70's,80's and 90's are 25 to 50 years after "the great patriotic war". Soviet forces on the rampage getting revenge on the Nazi's for gutting the western Soviet Union(and its occupied east European territories) are far in the past when these "modern" scenarios take place.

However soviet category A,B and C formations are going to have different morale values. How superior or inferior to various west European/US/Canadian forces is open to debate. Need to go by scenario time period. Also each unit/formation is different as well,for both sides. I really need to purchase this game,belated xmas gift for me.. How MadRussian worked the morale for the various scenarios alone now has me intrigued.

ORIGINAL: Tophat1812

How MadRussian worked the morale for the various scenarios alone now has me intrigued.

That was the easy part. I took our morale for when I was there and basically used that for everyone involved. I figured everybody would be about the same in the opening rounds. Not exactly the same and each unit has a morale set up or down to how I felt an entire units morale would be. So, there is no blanket morale applied to a side in any of the scenarios/campaigns I created.



Good Hunting.

MR

More Russian Helo's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPLtMMe6L-A

All this is all great and wonderful but that double rotor setup looks like it would have a huge signature on the field and would be much harder to put into covered positions.

Good Hunting.

MR

You mean the sheer height of the helicopter with dual rotors? But if you do the longbow-style setup for the helo's sensors on top of the rotors thats not even a disadvantage anymore.

I dunno from what ive heard ka 50 can strafe sideways 90-100 kmh while maintaining its nose pointed at one spot, can pretty much rotate 360 degrees while flying at one direction at pretty high speeds and generally do big stunts. Also, from what i heard ka29 is a much more stable firing platform when compared to hind and also i heard that mi8 in afghanistan had trouble with flying in mountaineous sparse air while kamovs would have little trouble.

Generally, dual rotor seems to give improved flight characteristics to a helicopter i think this includes things like climb rate and max altitude. All that could give certain advantages in both air to air and air to ground and just transport role.